BenShot, LLC v. Lucky Shot USA LLC, 2019 WL 527829, No.
18-C-1716 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 11, 2019)
“In 2015, BenShot began selling drinking
glasses with bullets embedded in the side via an insertion in the glass.” In 2016, Lucky Shot followed suit; both parties
added more types of glasses over time. Lucky Shot’s logo contains the terms
“U.S.A.” and “HANDCRAFTED.” [There are detailed allegations, but suffice it to say
that “Made in the USA” is allegedly a big part of the pitch on defendants’ own
websites and Instagram, on Amazon, in point-of-purchase displays, in Google ads, etc.]
On Alibaba.com, one defendant’s company profile states, “Our
products are designed and developed in the USA and contract manufactured in
China.” Lucky Shot’s manager allegedly admitted that the glass portions of at
least Lucky Shot USA’s shot and whiskey glasses were made in China. The bottom
of they whiskey glass packaging states, “Glass and packaging made in China.”
BenShot alleged federal and Wisconsin common law false
advertising claims. Lucky Shot argued that BenShot failed to plead fraud with
particularity under Rule 9(b), because BenShot acknowledged that the packaging
says that the glass was made in China. The court disagreed. The fact that one type of package says that
the glass and packaging is made in China doesn’t mean that the other
representations—including, crucially, the representations made in advertising for the glasses—were sufficiently
qualified.
BenShot also sufficiently alleged economic/reputational damages
by alleging direct competition + false advertising + BenShot’s own substantial
investment in making glasses in the US, which is important to customers +
resulting injury.
Defendants then argued that falsity wasn’t sufficiently alleged,
because they complied with FTC policy on “Made in USA” claims. See B. Sanfield,
Inc. v. Finlay Fine Jewelry Corp., 168 F.3d 967, 973 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he
[FTC’s] assessment of what constitutes deceptive advertising commands deference
from the judiciary.”). The package claims “assembled in the USA,” and the FTC
says, “[t]o begin with, in order for a product to be considered ‘all or
virtually all’ made in the United States, the final assembly or processing of
the product must take place in the United States.”
That was a misreading of the FTC standard, which says, “when
a marketer makes an unqualified claim that a product is ‘Made in USA,’ it
should, at the time the representation is made, possess and rely upon a
reasonable basis that the product is in fact all or virtually all made in the
United States.” An unqualified “Made in USA” claim means that a product should “contain
only a de minimis, or negligible, amount of foreign content.” Final assembly/processing
in the US is necessary but not sufficient under the plain language of the FTC
statement. In light of the FTC standard,
BenShot plausibly alleged literal falsity given that it alleged that the
defendants make the unqualified “Made in the USA” claim despite admitting that
this is not so. “While discovery is needed to better understand the defendants’
manufacturing process and costs, the allegations in the complaint do not
suggest that this is a case ‘[w]here the percentage of foreign content is very
low,’ or where ‘[f]oreign content ... is incorporated further back in the
manufacturing process’ such that the foreign content does not constitute ‘a
direct input into the finished product’” (citing FTC standard).
Defendants argued that BenShot failed to allege
misleadingness, but literal falsity/misleadingness didn’t need to be sorted out
at this stage of the case. Defendants
also argued that all of their statements had to be considered in the full
context of their offerings, including their qualified statement on the bottom
of their whiskey glass packaging. The argument
that one disclosure cured all other falsehoods was, the court noted, “unconvincing.”
The common law claim for unfair competition also survived.
No comments:
Post a Comment